YouTube restores Obama videos, refuses to explain takedown policies

Four YouTube videos that had apparently been taken down earlier this week due to dubious copyright claims by the music publisher BMG Rights Management have once again become available to American audiences.

The videos showed President Obama singing the opening line of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." One of the videos, released by the Mitt Romney campaign, used the clip to portray President Obama as too friendly with political donors. The others were news coverage of his appearance at the Apollo Theater earlier this year.

"When we're notified that a particular video uploaded to our site infringes another's copyright, we remove the material in accordance with the law," a YouTube spokeswoman told Ars by email. "We have a counter notification process in place if a user believes a content owner has misidentified their video, and we reinstate content if a user prevails in that process. We also reinstate videos in cases where we are confident that the material is not infringing, or where there is abuse of our copyright tools."

But in a telephone interview with Ars, the spokeswoman declined to elaborate, at least on the record, about why the videos were taken down and what safeguards are in place to prevent abusive takedown requests in the future. Indeed, she refused to even provide an on-the-record explanation of whether the videos in question had been taken down via a standard DMCA takedown request or with YouTube's proprietary Content ID system.

YouTube's takedown system has a long history of abuse by major copyright holders. Last December, Universal Music Group removed a music video produced by Megaupload and featuring some of the recording industry's biggest stars. When challenged, UMG stated that its contracts with YouTube gave it the "right to block or remove" videos even if they didn't contain UMG's copyrighted material. YouTube eventually restored the video but refused to disclose the details of UMG's agreement with YouTube.

In March, a music licensing firm used the Content ID system to take down a video that contained no music in it at all. When the video's owner disputed the takedown, the dispute was reportedly rejected by the same firm that had sent the original takedown. That suggests that Content ID appeals are sent right back to the same company that submitted the takedown in the first place. Indeed, critics claim that YouTube gives ordinary users no recourse at all if a copyright holder persists in wrongfully blocking their videos. Our YouTube spokeswoman refused to comment on these allegations on the record.

When a presidential campaign's ad is blocked, that will cause enough of a fuss that YouTube's lawyers can take a look themselves. But YouTube's legal department isn't going to give that level of attention to every dispute. So ordinary users need better procedural safeguards.

A good solution would be to require rightsholders whose Content ID blocks are disputed to submit a standard DMCA takedown notice. That would allow uploaders to respond with a DMCA counter-notice and force rightsholders to actually go to court if they believe their copyrights are being infringed.

A good solution would be to require rightsholders whose Content ID blocks are disputed to submit a standard DMCA takedown notice. That would allow uploaders to respond with a DMCA counter-notice and force rightsholders to actually go to court if they believe their copyrights are being infringed.

A better solution would be if there were actual repercussions for filing bad-faith/negligent takedown requests. If the RIAA can sue people for $250k/song (or whatever the rate was), I see it as completely fair for them to cut a $250k check (to the harmed party) per takedown found to be filed on material they don't own or was obviously used in a fair-use capacity.

Often times when there is a copyright dispute that goes public, the property owner is mocked by various media outlets; even if their argument is valid, or necessary to allow them to protect their right to prosecute more valid cases in the future.

By making every take down notice public, various copyright holders would be made to look power hunger by simply maintaining normal safe guards of their property.

If for instance a company owned a song that ended up in most fan made videos on youtube and had to prosecute every one of them, they would look worse than someone who's work was referenced occasionally and prosecuted attacks against up-loaders frivolously.

Us-"Your take down of this video is suspect. Why did you do it, who asked you to, and will this happen in the future?"YouTube-"No Comment"One news cycle later...Us-"The video is back, but what about the questions?"YouTube-"No Comment"

Sadly this seems to be one of the real issues with the DMCA(imo), the sites that abide by it either can't or won't talk about take down procedure.

Online providers are so paranoid of losing their safe harbor protection that they go overboard in favor of content owners. Ars has mentioned several times before that the section that deals with penalties for a wrong take down is positively toothless. Also given the amount of requests that Google and Youtube receive they are probably content to just have a half-baked system. After all if you piss off a teenager or two what do they care.

What I would love to see is a penalty paid out to the person who had their content taken down. I think something along the lines of the statutory damages sounds about right to me. Wouldn't be surprised if all of a sudden there was a big lobbying push by content owners to lower these or at least create a second tier for the individual infringers as opposed to the 'wholesale' infringers.

Perhaps yours is just a rhetorical question, but it seems easy to surmise it's worth it to YouTube, either monetarily via the contract or from lack of threat of lawsuit (same thing, right?) to keep the process a secret.

I don't understand why more people don't simply post videos elsewhere. Once a news organization or popular web site *cough reddit cough* picks up a video's existence and links to it, the video's hosting location becomes less important.

I mean, do most people really goto youtube.com to be entertained with whatever they randomly find there?

Frankly, the arguments and posturing deriding YouTube's positions on copyright are moot. They are a private business and may choose to act in any manner that fits their mood, so long as it doesn't run them afoul of existing laws.

What they choose to do is no one's business but their own. YouTube isn't yet another service people are entitled to. The whole service could be shut down tomorrow with no explanation and quite honestly, Google would probably have a gigantic time and money loser finally off their hands.

Perhaps yours is just a rhetorical question, but it seems easy to surmise it's worth it to YouTube, either monetarily via the contract or from lack of threat of lawsuit (same thing, right?) to keep the process a secret.

I don't understand why more people don't simply post videos elsewhere. Once a news organization or popular web site *cough reddit cough* picks up a video's existence and links to it, the video's hosting location becomes less important.

I mean, do most people really goto youtube.com to be entertained with whatever they randomly find there?

The DMCA is couched in law, so my point was more 'why wouldn't the law require a DMCA be public' as opposed to 'why Yahoo would want it to be private'. This may not have been a take down of that sort so my question may be misguided.

Quick question for anyone who can answer. If a song was originally released under a Creative Commons License on newgrounds and was subsequently used in an indie video game (with permission and proper attribution), can the artist of the song turn around later on and sell the copyright to a music studio? If so, could the music studio then retroactively assert copyright claims on clips of the video game (which include the song) that were posted on youtube?

I mean, do most people really goto youtube.com to be entertained with whatever they randomly find there?

Wait. You mean people don't do that?

I meant.. um.. yeah, I'd totally never do that.

One of the principle reasons I never click on a YouTube video is because the moment I do, I'm it's internet slave for the next two hours looking for weird things like planes landing in a strong crosswind.

Except thats not how the law works in practice, YouTube does everything they legally can to stop dmca fraud, if they so much as delay a takedown to ask questions they can lose their protection or even get the Megaupload treatment.

The problem lies with the law, treating Youtube as some sort of shadowy copyright puppet doesnt help at all.

Ars wrote: "A good solution would be to require rightsholders whose Content ID blocks are disputed to submit a standard DMCA takedown notice. That would allow uploaders to respond with a DMCA counter-notice and force rightsholders to actually go to court if they believe their copyrights are being infringed."

The Rumblefish/no-music removal is what makes this confusing for me. I thought that the quoted suggestion was how it's supposed to work already, which is what their policies (quoted below) suggest is true. But the Rumblefish story seems to indicate otherwise. Here's what I mean - YouTube's Copyright page says that, once you dispute a Content ID block:

"If the content owner disagrees with your dispute for any reason, they will have the option to submit a copyright takedown notice which will result in the disabling of your video and/or penalties against your account. To avoid penalization, only submit legitimate dispute claims." (link: http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid_dispute)

But, at least as reported in the Rumbefish claim referenced in this Ars article and a few other places, it seems that YouTube also allows content holders to flat-out reject Content ID disputes without filing a counter-notice. Maybe the "they will have the ***option***" part of the policy quoted above means that they also have other options, like disputing it without using the DMCA, as reportedly happened in the Rumblefish deal.

It would be helpful if YouTube would adhere to, or clarify, it's own policies. Otherwise, they leave us painting our own picture based on speculation - and so far, that picture looks very negative as to YouTube's respect for users relative to content owners.

Almost never in all of these stories do people seem to appreciate how much free crap there actually is on the internet. At some point I'd think youtube will have to go away or become an actual money maker for google. Listening to people whine non-stop about how they're owed the right to use youtube to mp3 converters for you know... ACADEMIC LECTURES and all the other shit they're not really using it for (free music) has to get old.

This story illustrates one of the worst aspects of the internet: how it has granted enormous amounts of anonymity to corporations so that they can build up positions of power and then abuse that power to the detriment of society overall, in favor of unidentified powerful and wealthy people.

Thanks Ars for the link to my website. I appreciate anything you can do to call attention to the flaws in YouTube's Content ID system which have proved disastrous for users.

One theory I am considering and just blogged about today, is that copyright claimants who abuse the Content ID system to knowingly claim copyright over a video they have no rights in might themselves be liable for copyright infringement by interfering with the uploader's right to control the distribution and public performance of their work. This is especially true when the false claimant ends up appropriating ad revenue that the uploader would otherwise be entitled to, thus unjustly profiting from their work. Might be something Ars might want to write about.

Frankly, the arguments and posturing deriding YouTube's positions on copyright are moot. They are a private business and may choose to act in any manner that fits their mood, so long as it doesn't run them afoul of existing laws.

What they choose to do is no one's business but their own. YouTube isn't yet another service people are entitled to. The whole service could be shut down tomorrow with no explanation and quite honestly, Google would probably have a gigantic time and money loser finally off their hands.

That works both ways actually. Youtube can choose to handle copyright however they like within the law, and we can choose to complain about and criticize Youtube's choices however we like, within the law. Or are we only giving that individual freedom to private businesses these days? I'm not asking the government to step in and force Youtube to handle copyright complaints in a particular manner, so this isn't an ideological argument about free enterprise and government interference. As consumers, we can vote with our wallets if we don't like what a business is doing, but we can also tell others why we disapprove and ask the business to change.

@Copylight - You are completely correct that YouTube says their policy is to require copyright owners to file a DMCA notice to re-remove a video after it has been blocked and disputed by the user. However that is absolutely NOT how things work in practice. In reality, the copyright claimant is given the ability to reject disputes against their own claims by "reinstating" the claim, after which the video is permanently re-blocked with absolutely no recourse for the user. See the page on my website which the Ars article linked to - http://fairusetube.org/youtube-copyfraud - which has a nice diagram of how this is all supposed to work and how YouTube says it works versus the way it actually works.

...I don't understand why more people don't simply post videos elsewhere. Once a news organization or popular web site *cough reddit cough* picks up a video's existence and links to it, the video's hosting location becomes less important.

I mean, do most people really goto youtube.com to be entertained with whatever they randomly find there?

This is another of those network effect, albeit not as serious as some other ones in the IT buisiness. If your video is on YouTube, the Googlebot will do what it can to link it to similar videos; and so you get a chance of views from YouTube users who might be interested. Other companies can play the same game, but if they start with a smaller user base, it will be less effective.

OTOH. I think anyone wanting to publish a video should upload it to as many places as she can. I expect big outfits like presidential campaigns already do. Nonetheless, YouTube is big prize (at least as far as the Interwebs go. The really big prize is actually Fox News ).

Except thats not how the law works in practice, YouTube does everything they legally can to stop dmca fraud, if they so much as delay a takedown to ask questions they can lose their protection or even get the Megaupload treatment.

The problem lies with the law, treating Youtube as some sort of shadowy copyright puppet doesnt help at all.

Well, there are two problems really. The first is with the law. The lack of penalties for frivolous takedowns allows interference with fair use rights. Even worse, when combined with the 10-14 day waiting period before reinstatement after a counter claim is filed, it allows the law to be used for censorship.

The second problem is flaws in Youtube's ContentID system, which is not required by law. As discussed above, these flaws leave users with no recourse because ContentID is not part of the DMCA process. It's not illegal to treat your users unfairly, but it doesn't make it right.

This story illustrates one of the worst aspects of the internet: how it has granted enormous amounts of anonymity to corporations so that they can build up positions of power and then abuse that power to the detriment of society overall, in favor of unidentified powerful and wealthy people.

As opposed to all the unidentified non-powerful people like... all the people who use youtube under screen names? Or us? Not sure how you'd think anonymity is more on the side of corps than people on the internet.

You tube's rights management is a contridiction in my experience as a content owner/creator/publisher. 1.Their content id system is only accsessible to really big players.2. by uploading a video.you agree that you own all said rights (as per disclaimer when uploading) then you tube moentize that conent for.themselves (placing ads on video.page etc). if however you want to monetize the video, they then ask for additional information/proof and make that process as difficult as possible - yes it protects joe public from monetizing someone elses content - but it completley negates the original disclaimer. The dislaimer that dissolves them of any responsibility for infringing content. So they'll monetize for themselves based on trust but only monetize for users based on proof.

In terms of proof, i have to send up to 14 different contracts just for audio content before they will give.me a cut of what they are already exploiting from the video to.which the original disclaimer was.enough for them

To me this just says they will.do.what ever they want, implement contradictive policies etc , ulitmatly the big conent owners need them and thats why they get away with.it.

The lying fascists at Google, who falsely claim they follow the rule "Do No Harm", have censored an Internet political ad by Mitt Romney. Do they not understand that the American political electorate rates the quality of our Presidential candidates by how well they slander and misrepresent their opponent? And of course, the voting public gives extra credit to those politicians who can do this in a humorous creative way. The time has come for Google to get off the high horse of political correctness and to listen to the music.

Google and You Tube need to live up to the claim that they are 'doing no harm'. There are plenty of others who can rise to the task of harming us all.

> The lying fascists at Google, who falsely claim they follow the rule "Do No Harm", have censored an Internet political ad by Mitt Romney.

Do you really want to go for the political angle? Mitt Romney should play with the same rules as the rest of us. If he wanted to take BMG or YouTube to court for restricting free speech, he could do so, and that would help everyone. If he wanted to propose a law that would remove the imbalance in favour of copyright maximalists, he could do so as well, and everyone would benefit. He doesn't deserve to be given special treatment.

Google is making it waaay too easy for the so called "copyright owners' to take down videos, and it's not even their obligation to do so. They should just answer the DMCA, not go the extra mile to censor a lot more content on the behalf of copyright holders.

Frankly, the arguments and posturing deriding YouTube's positions on copyright are moot. They are a private business and may choose to act in any manner that fits their mood, so long as it doesn't run them afoul of existing laws.

What they choose to do is no one's business but their own. YouTube isn't yet another service people are entitled to. The whole service could be shut down tomorrow with no explanation and quite honestly, Google would probably have a gigantic time and money loser finally off their hands.

Work for the RIAA much do you?

Youtube wouldn't be where it is without it's users. Your argument is that it doesn't have to listen to it's users is illogical.

Except thats not how the law works in practice, YouTube does everything they legally can to stop dmca fraud, if they so much as delay a takedown to ask questions they can lose their protection or even get the Megaupload treatment.

The problem lies with the law, treating Youtube as some sort of shadowy copyright puppet doesnt help at all.

That is just pure bullsh*t. Youtube could only take down videos when actually issued with a DMCA takedown notice. That is all that is required by law in order for them to get safe-harbor.

I presume that Google's motivation for letting the MAFIAAs take down stuff themselves is all about keeping them friendly for content licensing negotiations (e.g. for content to be sold though Google Play). If that is the case then they are indeed "some sort of shadowy copyright puppet".

I don't understand, didn't they have to wait 10 days? Was that a made up number, or are we just ignoring the law whenever it suits us?

Don't get me wrong, I think the entire process is retarded, but I'm more of a lawful-evil (or neutral), and if the law that's there says you can't put it back up for 10 days, then why are they further trying to invoke the wrath of BMG/RIAA/idiots?

I don't understand, didn't they have to wait 10 days? Was that a made up number, or are we just ignoring the law whenever it suits us?

I believe that by putting the video back up more quickly than is specified in the DMCA takedown process, they're exposing themselves to potential liability if the video were found to be infringing. Presumably, their lawyers are convinced that the fair use case is strong enough that they don't need to worry about getting sued over it.

I don't understand, didn't they have to wait 10 days? Was that a made up number, or are we just ignoring the law whenever it suits us?

Don't get me wrong, I think the entire process is retarded, but I'm more of a lawful-evil (or neutral), and if the law that's there says you can't put it back up for 10 days, then why are they further trying to invoke the wrath of BMG/RIAA/idiots?

‘‘(B) upon receipt of a counter notification describedin paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who providedthe notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with acopy of the counter notification, and informs that personthat it will replace the removed material or cease disablingaccess to it in 10 business days; and

‘‘(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disablingaccess to it not less than 10, nor more than 14,business days following receipt of the counter notice, unlessits designated agent first receives notice from the personwho submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C)that such person has filed an action seeking a court orderto restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activityrelating to the material on the service provider’s systemor network."

Ok, so, regardless of how stupid it is (especially in such a clear fair use case) the videos should technically still be blocked.

I suppose you can ignore whatever parts of the law you wish if you have the money for lawyers. Actually, never mind, nothing new there.

Actually, if you read through the DMCA, fair use or not, they are still required to do the take down (or consider take down) upon receiving a DMCA takedown request from the owner of the material. They are not required to make a determination of 'fair use' or 'noninfringment' when the request is received, but have at least 10 days to make such a decision. Looks like YouTube did follow the law, it may be BMG exploited the (spirit or intent of) law for their own purposes but looks like they were entitled to at least file a take down request under law.

I'm not a lawyer, and my above is based upon a plain reading of the DMCA. Not defending anyone but I think BMG violated the spirit or intent of the law but not the letter of the law (and as long as they did not violate the letter of the law they can't be held accountable). I think YouTube followed the law per the letter of the law because thats what they would be accountable for under law, adhering to the letter of the law (what other choice did YouTube have other than obeying the law).

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.